While the negativity is repetitive, it wasn't 2 months later for Twilight Princess; it was pretty much immediate. It's the same thing, though, "oh, it's too similar and therefore worse than this other even less unique title."

While the negativity is repetitive, it wasn't 2 months later for Twilight Princess; it was pretty much immediate. It's the same thing, though, "oh, it's too similar and therefore worse than this other even less unique title."

Well the cycles go faster and faster. Phantom Hourglass was imediatelely bashed, but it is different with Zelda. Why? Because Majora was bashed for being too different. Zelda are bashed for being the same (Twilight) or too different (Celda, Majora). So all Zelda's are going to be bashed it's tradition.

Because there was one recentely. They seem to crop up every few months. Playing GTA IV I just find it hugely hypocritical. Most of these guys will lambast Twilight Princess for being too similar and yet give GTA game after GTA game a free pass because they change the scenary and re-label the radio stations. It's the same fucking game.

Not that I dislike it. I'm actually enjoying number IV a lot more though. Still not as good as past games and all this 10/10 bullshit going around is some crazy shit.

That's what I find funny about it. Whether LO is innovative or not....whatever. (Though I think it is in the ways of character interaction and dialog) All I know is that its a very polished, very well paced RPG that keeps you hooked from start to finish and actually has an entertaining, mature-ish plot and some very interesting and likeable characters.

I've said it before....if it was called "Final Fantasy" there's no doubt in my mind places that gave it an 7.5 or 8, would have given it a 9. Because it really is the true FF11....minus summons and girly men.

I don't see much true innovation in many genres at all anymore...look at the shooters that come and go and get praised like they're godly when they're just the same thing as the last 20. Yet JRPG's like LO...clearly a step above most, get fucked with. Makes zero sense to me. Double Standards.

Another thing is, IMO, games don't need much innovation as long as they're inspired and done well. Was RE Zero the worst game in the RE series because it didn't innovate? Not at all....in fact they TRIED to innovate and do new things in that game, but all it did was make the existing RE style worse. What's unfortunate in a way is that this gets lost because RE4 came out next and was a total departure and an incredible game....so people assume now that the old RE style was dead when it really wasn't, because if it was, then REmake wouldn't have been so incredible. Its too bad Capcom didn't release another truly GREAT game of the old style before RE4...one actually on the level of RE2 and Code Veronica and REmake.

Basically, if a game is polished until it shines and has an amazing pace to it, and its clearly a step ahead of the others, it doesn't matter if its innovative at all.

The only reason shooters don't get nagged on for rarely changing their formula is because most people didn't play the previous shooters. I mean what's sad is that the shooters of the past piss all over most of the new ones. Deus Ex and the Original Half-Life are light years ahead in their design compared to the games that come out now.

I think that's because back then, there wasn't such a stupid need for multi-player online modes. Half Life and Dues Ex were designed to be incredible FPS story-based, campaign based games.

Most of these shooters today....and the developers making them, I mean they just half-ass the single player because they know they can use the online multi-player as an excuse to do so. They know sites like Gamespot will up the rating on their game as long as it has that damn online mode, even if the single-player is nothing special. Hell look at Bungie. Halo 2 sucked compared to Combat Evolved....but it had online multi-player! Automatic mid-9's rating.

Its sad that there's close to zero inspiration these days to push shooters forward in a cinematic, story-based way....people just keep falling back on those easy out lazy ass online modes that are all the same shit over and over again.

That's what I find funny about it. Whether LO is innovative or not....whatever. (Though I think it is in the ways of character interaction and dialog) All I know is that its a very polished, very well paced RPG that keeps you hooked from start to finish and actually has an entertaining, mature-ish plot and some very interesting and likeable characters.

I've said it before....if it was called "Final Fantasy" there's no doubt in my mind places that gave it an 7.5 or 8, would have given it a 9. Because it really is the true FF11....minus summons and girly men.

I don't see much true innovation in many genres at all anymore...look at the shooters that come and go and get praised like they're godly when they're just the same thing as the last 20. Yet JRPG's like LO...clearly a step above most, get fucked with. Makes zero sense to me. Double Standards.

Another thing is, IMO, games don't need much innovation as long as they're inspired and done well. Was RE Zero the worst game in the RE series because it didn't innovate? Not at all....in fact they TRIED to innovate and do new things in that game, but all it did was make the existing RE style worse. What's unfortunate in a way is that this gets lost because RE4 came out next and was a total departure and an incredible game....so people assume now that the old RE style was dead when it really wasn't, because if it was, then REmake wouldn't have been so incredible. Its too bad Capcom didn't release another truly GREAT game of the old style before RE4...one actually on the level of RE2 and Code Veronica and REmake.

Basically, if a game is polished until it shines and has an amazing pace to it, and its clearly a step ahead of the others, it doesn't matter if its innovative at all.

The only reason shooters don't get nagged on for rarely changing their formula is because most people didn't play the previous shooters. I mean what's sad is that the shooters of the past piss all over most of the new ones. Deus Ex and the Original Half-Life are light years ahead in their design compared to the games that come out now.

I think that's because back then, there wasn't such a stupid need for multi-player online modes. Half Life and Dues Ex were designed to be incredible FPS story-based, campaign based games.

Most of these shooters today....and the developers making them, I mean they just half-ass the single player because they know they can use the online multi-player as an excuse to do so. They know sites like Gamespot will up the rating on their game as long as it has that damn online mode, even if the single-player is nothing special. Hell look at Bungie. Halo 2 sucked compared to Combat Evolved....but it had online multi-player! Automatic mid-9's rating.

Its sad that there's close to zero inspiration these days to push shooters forward in a cinematic, story-based way....people just keep falling back on those easy out lazy ass online modes that are all the same shit over and over again.

And Edge to make matters worse, they never test the game out when it comes with balancing issues and lag. Yes the game never has lag, that's because they test it before it is released. Almost never are games tested online during real life conditions and never do they test the balancing.

Because there was one recentely. They seem to crop up every few months. Playing GTA IV I just find it hugely hypocritical. Most of these guys will lambast Twilight Princess for being too similar and yet give GTA game after GTA game a free pass because they change the scenary and re-label the radio stations. It's the same fucking game.

Not that I dislike it. I'm actually enjoying number IV a lot more though. Still not as good as past games and all this 10/10 bullshit going around is some crazy shit.

Did you post an article that was about how games these days get 10s easily? They specifically state the conditions GTA4 is reviewed in. Most of these so called reviewers did not even finish the game.

About Zelda, yes it is hypocritical, but it would not be Zelda if it did not happen. Read my post of the eternal love-hate cycle of Zelda games.

100 zombies for Dead rising Wii? The screens have 30 on screen and svensson said that that was indicitive of the number of zombies. I would prefer smaller environments and increased visual fidellity. If they cant even match RE4 on GC visuals they shouldn't bother.

Wario Land Shake It :-They all believe the programmers were lazy for not including a true widescreen-It only lags if you shake it really hard-Positive Impressions

Random stuff from Reader Q & A :

1. They think the apology on some Japanese site marks the death of Disaster2. If Wii Music was to be scored today, it would get a solid 2. Nintendo has no plans to change it. But it'll still sell amazingly. 3. They confirm Factor 5 is making Kid Icarus. (again) After talking about how Factor 5 said they want to make their Wii game as casual as possible.

Did you post an article that was about how games these days get 10s easily? They specifically state the conditions GTA4 is reviewed in. Most of these so called reviewers did not even finish the game.

About Zelda, yes it is hypocritical, but it would not be Zelda if it did not happen. Read my post of the eternal love-hate cycle of Zelda games.

That wasn't about how games easily acheive 10s these days. It was about how GTA IV was reviewed, the writers were given limitations and restricted access and no advance copies and left with a couple of days to put out a review at most.

But again, when we are talking about similar sequels, if people are criticising Twilight princess then they should be dropping massive turds on games like Halo 3 and GTA IV because those are just HD versions of the same damn games, only in some cases worse. I still prefer Halo 1 over the others, just like I prefer Splinter cell 1 over the rest of them.

There were quite a few changes in Twilight princess compared to those games, so all this similarity BS flies over my head like those air dropped turds.

^^I saw the Wii voicechat, but I did not post it, because we do not do the same for the other podcast. Plus they suck and are way to long. Plus they are getting whiney and annoying. Still talking about Kid Icarus? They never learn.

I wasn't expecting you to actually know the song or even that is was a single song

Just goes to show how great we are

Iga I was kidding about the bastardised version thing. But the proper song as I know it only has the drumming for the beggining then some singing than the drumming again. I never owned the kill bill soundtrack but in the movie they just repeat the instrumental and cut out the lyrics etc.

BTW did anyone else find Kill bill 2 boring compared to the original?

thank goodness someone else feels this way. kill-bill 1 was this awesome full-blown homage to cool kung-fu movies of yesteryear leading up to the awesome showdown with lucy lou in the end and so many fantastic sections in between (hatori hanzo, the anime sequence etc). just an all around awesome movie which was a joy to watch from beginning to end ...

then came vol. 2 and tarantino suddenly decides vol. 1 wasn't 'tarantino' enough so decides to fill it in with inconsicuential dialogue that's not even remotely funny and remove any sense of climax or build-up and catharsis at the end (or even a decent fight) but for that stupid punch. thorough thorough letdown.

i do still watch vol1 and enjoy it in its own right but vol2 was a completely wasted opportunity.

PS i'm well impressed by people knowing gill scott heron. the revolution will not be televised ... ya bastards!

While the negativity is repetitive, it wasn't 2 months later for Twilight Princess; it was pretty much immediate. It's the same thing, though, "oh, it's too similar and therefore worse than this other even less unique title."

Well the cycles go faster and faster. Phantom Hourglass was imediatelely bashed, but it is different with Zelda. Why? Because Majora was bashed for being too different. Zelda are bashed for being the same (Twilight) or too different (Celda, Majora). So all Zelda's are going to be bashed it's tradition.

Phantom Hourglass didn't get that much hate as it was just a handheld game. Majora's understandable because it followed the highest rated game of all-time and it was so radiacally different. Windwaker (as someone who played it) was nowhere near the quality of the previous ones as it was far easier and shallower with ridiculous amounts of sailing. Fans begged for a game like Twilight Princess, when Nintendo finally answered their pleads they complained even more.

edgecrusher said:

I think that's because back then, there wasn't such a stupid need for multi-player online modes. Half Life and Dues Ex were designed to be incredible FPS story-based, campaign based games.

Most of these shooters today....and the developers making them, I mean they just half-ass the single player because they know they can use the online multi-player as an excuse to do so. They know sites like Gamespot will up the rating on their game as long as it has that damn online mode, even if the single-player is nothing special. Hell look at Bungie. Halo 2 sucked compared to Combat Evolved....but it had online multi-player! Automatic mid-9's rating.

Its sad that there's close to zero inspiration these days to push shooters forward in a cinematic, story-based way....people just keep falling back on those easy out lazy ass online modes that are all the same shit over and over again.

Agreed. And the thing is that people eat this crap up. How a game like Resistence becomes the "definitive" PS3 game and how Turok for the PS3/360 surpasses a million copies is beyond me. Honestly though I'm sure developers can't be happier. Shooters are so easy to make and make the "next gen checklist" easily as they showcase graphics and A.I. into their gameplay easily. If developers were making a game in any other genre it would cost far more. I mean what would be harder? Creating a shooter to meet next gen standards or creating a RPG or action-adventure game?

*Sigh* I really miss last gen. By this time we were getting a wide variety of games coming out on a regular basis like Zone of the Enders 2, Aterial Iris, Viewtiful Joe, Shinobi, Shenmue 2,Metal Arms, etc. I mean all these games are completely different from one another. This gen? Nearly everything plays and even looks the same. The only console that doesn't suffer from this is the Wii, and quality games are pretty few and far inbetween and it isn't until just NOW that a steady stream of production valued games are getting announced for it.

thank goodness someone else feels this way. kill-bill 1 was this awesome full-blown homage to cool kung-fu movies of yesteryear leading up to the awesome showdown with lucy lou in the end and so many fantastic sections in between (hatori hanzo, the anime sequence etc). just an all around awesome movie which was a joy to watch from beginning to end ...

then came vol. 2 and tarantino suddenly decides vol. 1 wasn't 'tarantino' enough so decides to fill it in with inconsicuential dialogue that's not even remotely funny and remove any sense of climax or build-up and catharsis at the end (or even a decent fight) but for that stupid punch. thorough thorough letdown.

i do still watch vol1 and enjoy it in its own right but vol2 was a completely wasted opportunity.

PS i'm well impressed by people knowing gill scott heron. the revolution will not be televised ... ya bastards!

Damn straight. I put my copy of kill bill 2 in the bin. I've never been so bored. It's like tarantino took this one big film, put all the best bits in the first film and then it was a hit and decided to put out the boring leftovers into the second film.

punk rebel ecks said:

The only console that doesn't suffer from this is the Wii, and quality games are pretty few and far inbetween and it isn't until just NOW that a steady stream of production valued games are getting announced for it.